From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #207 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Friday, July 30 2004 Volume 04 : Number 207 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: [loud-fans] Home recording? [dmw ] [loud-fans] RE: Interpol; bands that start with "C" ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: [loud-fans] they have 200 couches [DOUDIE@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] RE: Interpol; bands that start with "C" [Miles Goosens Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Home recording? On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Chris Murtland wrote: > > If you wanted to buy a computer to do some home recording > > (mostly acoustic guitar stuff), do you recommend getting an > > Apple, or something else? I want something easy to use > > because I'm fairly illiterate, computer-wise. My basic > > understanding is that Apple stuff is easier to use and more > > dependable. Got any thoughts on what hardware and software to get? Mark, I'm not sure what your budget might be... i'm not qualified to recommend which computer platform to go with, as i've used pc's and standalones almost exclusively, but i recently configured a machine at pcaudiolabs.com, and i highly recommend checking that out. they're very helpful and patient and much to my surprise, their custom audio-ready machines are very competitive with the likes of dell, gateway etc. there seems to be something of a backlash against protools in some home recording communities, which i'm at a loss to understand. the mbox is a nice entry-level product and if you don't need to record more than two tracks at once, it's sufficient for most home recording. if you want more than 2 tracks simultaneously, the digi002 is very nice (and includes a mixing surface). there are 2 huge advantages to going this route: first, you don't have to worry about whether your audio interface is compatible with your software, and there's no tweaking to make it happen. second, if you should want to take your home-recorded tracks into a pro studio at some point to mix in a good acoustic space or add pianner or something, you'll probably be able to bring your session in and open it up directly, because most pro studios have some specie of protools available. (pro tools' learning curve is imho a bit steeper than sonar/cakewalk or logic, but there's a really nice book called pro tools power! that can ease the curve; i reviewed it here: http://www.pathetic-caverns.com/books/m/colin_macqueen_and_steve_albanese.html ) > While you certainly have a lot of editing power with the computer and can > get really good sound with the right hardware, I've found I prefer the > standalone recorders. The biggest reason is their portability: I don't have > to move a computer around if I decide I want to record something in the > bathroom or living room or at someone else's house, etc. [In theory, a > properly equipped laptop might offer a similar benefit, but I've never tried > that.] The whole experience just seems to fit better with hobbyist recording > where you aren't really trying to set up a serious project studio. But the > interface is not going to be as friendly (or colorful), although it will be > more physical (actual faders, etc.); however, you can buy "control surfaces" > that give you physical faders for controlling computer recording software, > too. i co-engineered a project that was done on a roland vs1680, and i wouldn't recommend a standalone workstation at all. the biggest problem is that the physical space of the workstation is so small that almost every control has at least two different functions in different modes -- modes aren't clearly indicated, and it's really easy to do something destructive because you're not in the mode you think you are. also the onboard effects were kinda cheesy overall, and the presets were terrible. kinda like the pod, i had the impression that you COULD make a good record with it if you really put the time into tweaking, but imho it's easier if you start with gear that sounds a little better before you start tweaking. (and if you're used to mixing on pro/semi-pro consoles - -- one of the ubiquitious mackies or the like ... you are going to HATE those tiny little faders and pots. yugh.) (also, mixing on the 'puter takes some time to get used to, but as long as you don't need to do multiple fader moves simultaneously live, it's really not too bad -- it can be more time consuming to play through and tweak a fader track by track, but you can also draw automation directly if you know where you want it, which is much faster. i'm beginning to think it evens out) another recent project (hyphens) was done on two of the tascam 788's slaved together -- that was definitely better. it did mean we had to commit to mix decisions earlier -- the drums were basically on one of the two boxes, and bounced to a stereo submix on the other one... so there were some things we couldn't revisit in mixdown. that may have been process error more than a hardware limitation; i'm not sure. on the other hand, i routinely drag my computer to record in peoples' basements, bathrooms, backyards etc. the computer itself is roughly the same size and weight as one of the roland units, so it's basically a monitor's worth of additional schleppage -- really not so bad. someday i'll be able to afford a flat screen, and then it'll be about even. > You'll also want a couple of decent condenser mics for recording acoustic > instruments. and a halfway decent preamp. i'm in complete agreement with bradley's recommendation of the oktava 319; the mc-o1's are nice too -- a stereo pair on acoustic guitar can sound awfully good. so's the rode ntk. avoid the (attractively priced) akg c3000b unless it flatters *your* voice. it flatters relatively few. ...if you've heard "mr.fool" on the let's active trib disc ... the mc-o1's were used on the cymbals/toms on the drum kit. the vocal was sung through the c3000b. that's $300 i really coulda spent better elsewhere. you can find it at http://www.kingkilowatt.com/songs.html. (fool was recorded in protools; the other tracks on that page were recorded through the same mics but mixed on a roland vs1680) the vocals on the hyphens ep ( http://www.thehyphensrock.com/mp3.html ) were cut with the rode ntk. (disclaimer: i wouldn't say that any of these are particularly good recordings/mixes, but they might give you some idea of what the microphones sound like.) one last recommendation: the "mixmasters" list is not low traffic but most of the folks are very nice. a lot of semi-pro home/project studio recordists hang out and are very helpful, and some full time pros lurk/contribute from time to time. the pathetic caverns: a zine - opinionated and eclectic reviews a studio - specializing in indie/rock/mobile/live/demo recording http://www.pathetic-caverns.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:54:22 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] RE: Interpol; bands that start with "C" Miles: >>If the rest of the new Interpol album (scheduled for a Sept. 28th release >>in the U.S.) is on a par with the new songs from tonight's set, I may well >>have a new favorite band. Hmmm. Interpol is an rare case where I seem to have heard them well before they picked up much "buzz", got the record when it came out, liked it okay but not as much as I expected to, and sat back while they got relatively huge. I think I really can't get over the fact that, to my ears, they sound exactly like the Chameleons, or at least enough like them that it seems a bit unfair that Interpol gets to be successful sounding like that 2004 while the Chameleons didn't when they pioneered that sound. Maybe I just don't respond to the songwriting... and maybe that's because I expect the lyrics to be Mark Burgess-like as well, and they aren't... not to say that's a bad thing, but it seems a bit incongruous. I did see Interpol live a while back... they were good, but not overwhelming, although that was probably at least in part due to the crappy sound at the Palladium (terrible at the best of times, worse still for a dense textural sound like Interpol's). Perhaps parallel to Miles comparing them to spiritual forebearers the Cure, I'd have to say that the Church easily kicked Interpol's ass when I saw them a week or so later. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:13:21 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Home recording? Yeah, I guess it depends on what you're going for (hobbyist vs. as close to pro as possible) and what kind of experience you like. To me, the experience is more important than the sound quality, because my primary goal is to have fun while I am doing it. Even if I am planning for others to hear the end result, their experience of it is secondary to mine. I also don't use many effects. Mostly, the standalones give me more of the feelings of using my old cassette four-track, which just seemed more fun. Maybe it's because I look at the computer for work 12-15 hours a day, but I've found that when I record on the computer I feel like I am working rather than playing. Also, there is something about seeing the tracks lined up on the screen as little colored bars with waveforms that just deflates the joy for me. I know editing is much easier that way, but I'm too lazy to edit, anyway. And I've never used any real mixers, so I have nothing to compare to there. That said, I am also convinced that PC recording is the "right" way to go, which is why I bought a bunch of stuff to get to that point. I just find that in reality, my own preference is to plug in mic 1 to input 1, mic 2 to input 2 (etc.) and press record, leaving the pixels out of it. I do like shooting for the best end result possible, even though I know little about the technical aspects, so I am considering a tiered approach where I get the basic tracks down on a standalone and then do mixing and whatnot on the computer. But then it just starts sounding too complicated again... and I decide that perhaps I ought to just read a book or something for fun. My commitment to making music is pretty weak overall, but on the other hand, it's one of the most satisfying things I know when I have something in recorded form that is close to what I imagined, even if it's not all that great in any other sense. I suppose I could be classified as the "masturbatory recordist," so my advice comes with all the hairy-palmed caveats that entails. Plus, I'd have to write songs to have something to record, anyway, and I'm in kind of a rut in that regard. It seems no matter how I contort my left hand and no matter which conniption my right hand undertakes, everything that comes out seems vaguely familiar to me (if not clearly familiar) and I decide to just go read a book. Static is the most beautiful sound to me now, but I don't see the point of recording static since everyone already knows what it sounds like. later, mrt PS good point re: pre-amp; when I first got one I was amazed that I could now get a real level without a corresponding ocean of hiss > i co-engineered a project that was done on a roland vs1680, > and i wouldn't recommend a standalone workstation at all. > the biggest problem is that the physical space of the > workstation is so small that almost every control has at > least two different functions in different modes -- modes > aren't clearly indicated, and it's really easy to do > something destructive because you're not in the mode you > think you are. also the onboard effects were kinda cheesy > overall, and the presets were terrible. kinda like the pod, > i had the impression that you COULD make a good record with > it if you really put the time into tweaking, but imho it's > easier if you start with gear that sounds a little better > before you start tweaking. (and if you're used to mixing on > pro/semi-pro consoles > -- one of the ubiquitious mackies or the like ... you are > going to HATE those tiny little faders and pots. yugh.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:51:34 EDT From: DOUDIE@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] they have 200 couches In a message dated 7/29/04 1:44:44 AM, outdoorminer@mindspring.com writes: > > If the rest of the new Interpol album (scheduled for a Sept. 28th release > in the U.S.) is on a par with the new songs from tonight's set, I may well > have a new favorite band. > > You can find the new interpol record online. I won't say how since it isn't legal, but I will say it is comparable to the first record. I find them both to be front loaded with the best songs, ANTICS is however more consistent and rewarding. I have to agree with Rex that Paul Banks' lyrics are a bit underwhelming, even my favorite lines like "I left my urge in the icebox", don't have much resonance when you really bite into them. New songs, "Narc" and "Evil" are amazing. Everyone should check out Joanne Newsom's MILK EYED MENDER. It is indescribably great. Someone who finally deserves a Joni Mitchell comparison. Steve Matrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:19:14 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Interpol; bands that start with "C" At 11:54 AM 7/29/2004 -0700, Rex.Broome wrote: >Miles: >>>If the rest of the new Interpol album (scheduled for a Sept. 28th release >>>in the U.S.) is on a par with the new songs from tonight's set, I may well >>>have a new favorite band. > >Hmmm. Interpol is an rare case where I seem to have heard them well before >they picked up much "buzz", got the record when it came out, liked it okay >but not as much as I expected to, and sat back while they got relatively >huge. I think I really can't get over the fact that, to my ears, they sound >exactly like the Chameleons, or at least enough like them that it seems a >bit unfair that Interpol gets to be successful sounding like that 2004 while >the Chameleons didn't when they pioneered that sound. OK, I finally did get a Chameleons album, STRANGE TIMES, which I'm liking O.K. but not being blown away by, sort of like your reaction to Interpol. Also, though it's obviously from the milieu from which Interpol draws, I don't hear the *strong* similarities of which you speak. Do I have the wrong album or something? (Apologies to Feg-listers, who saw some variant of Rex and I discussing Interpol and the Chameleons... a year ago? But this is more of a sequel than a rerun, plus it's got new content! And this time I didn't momentarily mistake the Chameleons U.K. for the Charlatans U.K.!) >Maybe I just don't >respond to the songwriting... and maybe that's because I expect the lyrics >to be Mark Burgess-like as well, and they aren't... not to say that's a bad >thing, but it seems a bit incongruous. Hm. I find Interpol's lyrics to be the sort of oblique that's intriguing -- they're not up to quite the same non-sequitur game as Wire, but it evokes a similar sort of response in me. And I find the music so evocative and powerful that I can zoom past the occasional clunker. To me, it's sort of like letting Newman/Lewis write the lyrics for Kitchens of Distinction (hey, I get to promote my "overlooked Interpol influence" too!). >I did see Interpol live a while back... they were good, but not >overwhelming, although that was probably at least in part due to the crappy >sound at the Palladium (terrible at the best of times, worse still for a >dense textural sound like Interpol's). Sound was terrible as usual at Starwood (our Clear Channel shed) last night, so I'd say that's a wash(out). I mean, since we can't get in the time machine and have both of us go to both shows, all we can do is say how we felt about the shows we did see. And again, for me, last night was pure electricity. I'd like to believe that if you saw last night's set, you'd feel the same way, but there's no way to know. Hey, if you want to see the live-review equivalent of a Rorschach blot test, just check out the reader reviews of Fall shows at . Heck, there were five of us on idealcopy who went to the Atlanta show in 2003, and one of us appeared to have seen an entirely different show than the rest of us, complete with a different setlist and an account of events (not *opinions* about the show, but factual accounting of what took place at the show) that was 180 degrees different than mine or the other fellas'. I think all of it's contained in these digests: http://www.smoe.org/lists/idealcopy/2003/v06.n206 http://www.smoe.org/lists/idealcopy/2003/v06.n207 http://www.smoe.org/lists/idealcopy/2003/v06.n208 Pointless complaint department: Someone on the Interpol boards is bitching about how at last night's Curiosa installment "they were rushing all the bands off stage to get ready for the cure." Not only has this person not figured out that Davidson County has an 11 PM curfew on outdoor shows, so there's no way that the festival could have gotten all those bands on and off if they allowed longer sets (and the Cure themselves played only 1:45 instead of the 2:30-3:00 you'd get at a Cure-only show), but methinks they've never been to a festival before. Everyone gets shoehorned into smaller sets at every festival I've been to, even the last bands on their respective stages. I missed the only Nashville performances by Tricky and James because I didn't want to put up with the Lollapalooza hassles just to catch 30-45 minute sets by the only two artists I liked on the bill. A 40 minute set from Interpol is exactly what I expected from the penultimate main stage act under these circumstances, and that's what we got. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:27:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Interpol; bands that start with "C" On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Miles Goosens wrote: > OK, I finally did get a Chameleons album, STRANGE TIMES, which I'm > liking O.K. but not being blown away by, sort of like your reaction to > Interpol. Also, though it's obviously from the milieu from which > Interpol draws, I don't hear the *strong* similarities of which you > speak. Do I have the wrong album or something? That's the right Chameleons album to own, whether or not it's the most Interpol-like. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:11:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Curley Subject: Fwd: Re: [loud-fans] RE: Interpol; bands that start with "C" I think you would hear the strongest similarities on the Chameleons' first album, "Script for the Bridge." Songs like Obstacle 1 and Roland would easily fit into this album. "Strange Times" is probably my favorite Chameleons album, but their sound had changed quite a bit, and it's really not very comparable to Interpol. Mike Miles Goosens wrote: OK, I finally did get a Chameleons album, STRANGE TIMES, which I'm liking O.K. but not being blown away by, sort of like your reaction to Interpol. Also, though it's obviously from the milieu from which Interpol draws, I don't hear the *strong* similarities of which you speak. Do I have the wrong album or something? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:48:01 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: [loud-fans] prehistoric swap review Jer Fairall sent me, about a million years ago, a 2-CD swap mix called (presumably from some lyric therein that I haven't noticed yet) "Like They're in Some Book by Ayn Rand." It was divided into "The Purple Side" (which did not contain only Prince songs) and "The Pink Side" (which, thankfully, contained nothing by Pink) and came on correspondingly colored cool Verbatim LP-looking CD-Rs. (Just the other day I saw they're making DVD-Rs that look like old filmreels...that's stretching a concept just a bit, say I...) Anyway, tracklisting with occasional commentary: Purple: 1 Rachael Sage "What If" - Kinda repetitive chord sequence, crunchy guitar, Fender Rhodes, slightly megaphone-filter -sounding vocal with that sorta quavery thing that all those young female whippersnappers go for these days. Eh. 2 Home "Burden" - I assume this is the same Home - but it sounds nothing like anything on the one album of theirs I have (Elf: Gulf Bore Waltz). This one is sorta countryish, but with percussion provided by five guys jumping on a board rigged to pop plastic bubblepack. Or something. Then there's a long string-synth coda at half-tempo that sounds like one of those late-'70s epics. I'm not sure - actually, this probably is the same Home, since it sounds like five different bands...which is what I remember from EGBW as well. 3 Idlewild "Live in a Hiding Place" - Hmm. I liked the previous Idlewild record - but until I looked, it hardly sounded like the same band. Someone removed most the grit from the singer's voice (isn't he named something like one of the Rutles?). Still, not a bad song - but not as compelling either. 4 Suddenly, Tammy! "Mark of Man" - Of course we've got yr pianner - but at least on the first verse, I like the quasi-military drumrolls (but sans snare for a hollower sound). Singer's got that odd sort of chipmunky tone in her upper register - I dunno: some interesting arranging ideas, but the base of the song is piano-ballady, and a bit too AAA-ish for me at this very moment. Talk to me tomorrow, I might feel differently. 5 The Weakerthans "Plea from a Cat Named Virtue" - I'm really not sure why I haven't picked up this album yet. I like everything I've heard from it so far (and this track is a particular favorite...of mix makers, certainly! I think I have it three times now...), and unusually for me, I actually notice the lyrics. It helps that they're, what you call...good. It's hard to make a song sung from the POV of a cat not sound terminally cutesy - but they pull it off here. 6 Atom & His Package "Does Anyone Else in This Room Want to Marry His or Her Own Grandmother?" - Notable for being probably the only pop song to contain the word "purplize" (which may explain this "side"'s title?). I like the bass sound and the odd, out-of-tune percussion. 7 David Bowie "China Girl" - Okay, since everyone here knows this song, I'll only say this: please, all musicians everywhere - do not ever again think it clever or appropriate to do the little parallel fourths thingy to suggest "Oriental." Christ. (The right thing to say about this track, of course, is that you prefer Iggy's original. Except I'm not sure I do. I think, actually, that _Let's Dance_ has more good songs than most folks give it credit for. Okay, it's not among his best - but that's a pretty high standard.) 8 Jack Breakfast "The Dukes of Eglington" - "Jack Breakfast"? What, they run out of band names wherever they're from? Yeesh. Anyway: one of those very affected singers - kinda like a glam ballad from the '70s. Eh. 9 Leslie Spit Treeo "Chocolate Chip Cookies" - Yep, definitely running out of band names. I've heard of this song - and I thought I had it in my collection, but I can't find it. It doesn't sound familiar either. Was it on everyone else's mixes a few years back? 10 Hanson "Lost Without Each Other" - This is the second "new" Hanson track someone's sent me - they're both pretty good, in a straightforward rock-pop way - singer's got a little bit of '70s rock dude in his voice, but that fits the style. 11 Kathleen Edwards "Westby" - Everyone compares her to Lucinda Williams. I dunno - this does sound kinda like Lucinda - but like one of her lesser efforts. Not persuaded so far. 12 The Cansecos "What It Was You Said" - Kinda tweaked pop that reminds me of someone, but I can't think of who. I like it though. Synths sound sorta like an '80s video-game, but they're textural, not the whole story - - never heard of these folks: tell me more. 13 Richard Buckner "...& the Clouds've Lied" - The bass here sounds like something large being swallowed by something larger. That's a nice contrast to the vibes, acoustic guitar, and what sounds like two separate drum sets - but it goes well with a sort of gnarly guitar sound as well. Also, sort of a Spanish guitar lead. Nice stuff: solid tune, well-arranged, and I haven't had a chance to listen to lyrics yet but what's stuck out sounds good. 14 Largo "Medallion" - Sung from the perspective of an immigrant Pakistani cab driver in the US. Anyway, when they're done well, I like narrative songs, and I think they're a better way to make points than just hitting people over the head with facts. Nicely done. Not sure what instrument that is taking the solo, but it's a wicked solo nonetheless. Ends with (segues into, as a separate track?) a new setting of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Whoa - that piano is potentially headache-inducing in headphones. Panmania! 15 Mishima USA "If I Wake Up" - This is one of those songs that I like some things about as I'm listening, but then I can never remember afterwards. A little too generic indie-rock, post-Coldplay division, for my tastes, I think. 16 Jetplane Landing "Atoms Dream in Technicolor" - We're in the "sleepy" section of the tape, evidently. Stuttering beginning with a sort of distorted guitar on a curious chord - suddenly into a 6/8 instrumental intro, and now the verse comes in, the guy's talking over the music, which has switched into a basic 4/4. All of this is more in the mode of, say, Jawbox than the progginess the description might suggest. Bass borrowed from Paul McCartney doing "Helter Skelter" when he was using a pick to make big ugly noise. The singer who isn't singing is becoming annoying, though - a bit squawky. He's better when actually singing, if a bit (warning: dumb word coming up) emo-ish, at least in my dim understanding of what the hell that word might mean. 17 The Mendoza Line "Sleep of the Just" - The Costello tune. Starts with a funeral at a roller rink (with organ accompaniment). I don't like the double-tracking on the vocal at all: this song is sung from the perspective of one person, and the double-tracking removes it from the character and makes it into just another song. Okay: I'll pretend that Elvis isn't one of my favorite singers, and this song's melody isn't one of his best ever, and that the song nearly always just about breaks my heart, and try to judge it on its own terms now. Ah hell, it's not working. In theory, I'd like this, except probably for the tweezy, swirly synth (I've never been that fond of the swirling thing people like to make synths do - oh well.) Disc 2 tomorrow - or later today - or maybe next week - company's coming! (PS: also coming at about the same time: the next swap list.) - --------------------------- J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:32:51 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] prehistoric swap review On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:56:28 -0700, "Bradley Skaught" said: > > > 7 David Bowie "China Girl" - Okay, since everyone >here knows this song, > > I'll only say this: please, all musicians everywhere - do >not ever again > > think it clever or appropriate to do the little parallel >fourths thingy > > to suggest "Oriental." > > I remember an interview with Nile Rodgers where he basically said that > the > "oriental" bit was his idea because if it was going to be a hit in > America > it had to have a "chinese part" in it so people would get it. Uh, get what? That the song's called "China Girl" (which phrase Bowie sings a zillion times)? Sounds more like the interviewer called Rodgers on the cliche - and he did some quick thinking to come up with a plausible-sounding (but not plausible) excuse... Actually, the "Oriental" thing here isn't quite as obnoxious as in some songs - in fact, if I heard that bit in a song *not* called "China Girl," I might not even think of it as being movie-soundtrack "Oriental" at all. On a completely other note: we've been besieged by billboards for the FX network, and apparently their new slogan is "Lean Forward." Huh? What is it with slogans that are so vague, or common, as to approach a sort of meaninglessness? What is this, the pop-Zen of commerce? (No truth to the rumors that the FX Adult channel is going to use the slogan "Bend Over"...) - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #207 *******************************